[Busted] NASA caught faking Gemini-10 Spacewalk Photos?

page: 10
35
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by JimOberg
 


Well, JimO, you're gonna love this!!:....

NASA explainer extraordinaire Brian Welsh says

'Bad editing error...'


And the deceptive intent is .. uh, what?




posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 06:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
Now I find they weren't so perhaps ArMap, Phage and Oberg are right that NASA have never retouched a picture of the moon!?

As I said in my first post on this thread, I have seen at least two photos on NASA sites that were altered.

One of those I do not remember what it was, but the other case was this one, and it shows that we cannot really trust NASA photos that are not on the sites meant for the scientific community. I have never seen anything suspicious in those sites.


Thanks, I looked at it. So two different images with possible different color levels is the sign of deliberate intent to deceive? Seems a stretch to me.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by JimOberg
So two different images with possible different color levels is the sign of deliberate intent to deceive?
No, but two images, in which one had the colour removed from part of it shows, at least, intent to show things different from what they really are.

Can you tell me what reason do you see for turning part of that photo (the Moon) into a greyscale image while keeping the Earth in colour?

The only reason I see is to make the Earth more photogenic and the Moon more "out of this world", one of those things that people in marketing like to do.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Can you tell me what reason do you see for turning part of that photo (the Moon) into a greyscale image while keeping the Earth in colour?



The USGS is also guilty of doing that - perhaps so as not to conflict with NASA's version of the moon. Gotta keep the story straight:


Remember this image? :




"This image is offered by the USGS as one of the images taken by Clementine using the high res natural light camera... see anything wrong?

That earth is a 3D CGI model pasted onto the gray moonscape to keep people believing the myth that the moon is not a full color celestial body."

-Zorgon




*Here is the Moon with some Colour - From Apollo 8. Very Nice:




[edit on 19-7-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


SO. What?

Big Deal.

The USGS picture is clearly labeled. It is NOT intended to deceive.

Exuberant, you seem the only one with intent to deceive, here......



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker


The USGS picture is clearly labeled. It is NOT intended to deceive.



Now you are making things up....


Nowhere on the image is it stated that the Earth is a 3D CGI model pasted above the gray moonscape.

Poor Form, WeedWacker. I expected more from you.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 10:02 AM
link   
Although the USGS image was altered, what it says on the site (or at least in the page I found) is "The Earth as seen across the lunar north pole by the UVVIS camera, the large crater in the foreground is Plaskett. The Earth actually appeared about twice as far above the lunar horizon as shown." It does not talk about being a "3D CGI Earth".

But where is the evidence that this was really a "3D CGI Earth"? Just saying so does not mean it is true.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP

Originally posted by JimOberg
So two different images with possible different color levels is the sign of deliberate intent to deceive?
No, but two images, in which one had the colour removed from part of it shows, at least, intent to show things different from what they really are.

Can you tell me what reason do you see for turning part of that photo (the Moon) into a greyscale image while keeping the Earth in colour?

The only reason I see is to make the Earth more photogenic and the Moon more "out of this world", one of those things that people in marketing like to do.


So the moon has been reduced to simple shades of grey so that we cannot see the true colours that are present on the moon? If that's right then there's another problem with NASA. . . Why did Jim Lovell, when he was orbiting the moon aboard Apollo 8 describe the moon as grey, looking like plaster of paris. I think those were his words. It seems to me that NASA, and it's astronauts, were working together to force this belief on us that the moon is grey and boring.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 



Nowhere on the image is it stated that the Earth is a 3D CGI model pasted above the gray moonscape.


I repeat....

So. What?

It is only an implication by zorgon that there was intent to deceive by the USGS. Anyone with even a modicum of understanding of actual photos of Earth from space would see the obviousness of the Earth not being a 'true' image. The Lunar depiction is also equally wrong-looking.

It's just a pretty picture, a representation....an impression of what it MIGHT look like. Makes it easierer for people to picture, without aving to resort to imagination.

This is like claiming those commercials with dead people dancing with live people are intentionally trying to convince the audience that the dead people are alive again!



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
So the moon has been reduced to simple shades of grey so that we cannot see the true colours that are present on the moon?
In that case, yes.

But as far as I remember that was the only occasion of a colour photo being changed in a two-parts photo, a colour photo for the Earth and a greyscale photo for the Moon.

And there are many colour photos of the Moon.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Mintwithahole.
 



Why did Jim Lovell, when he was orbiting the moon aboard Apollo 8 describe the moon as grey, looking like plaster of paris.


Try to think of it this way...it's a matter of distance and perspective.

I don't have photos handy to clarify these thoughts, so words will have to suffice.

Imagine you are a thousand miles up, over the Sahara Desert. Looking at it with unaided eyes, what colour do you think you will see? A sandy, tannish colour? Pretty much blended together, no real detail stands out.

NOW...descend. The closer you get, the more detail you see. AND more segments that may show color variations. Closer, and closer and closer...more detail, more variation more colour....get it?



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

No, I'm afraid I don't get it! The pictures taken of the earth from lunar orbit show all the myriad of colours which make up the differing terrains, seas, clouds, etc. You can see all that from 240,000 miles away, but Lovell couldn't see colours on the lunar surface beneath him!! Next you'll be telling me he was colour blind. . .



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Mintwithahole.
 


Mint, because we are familiar with the Earth, and we know about the variations...the Moon is far more homogenous in color. It has no water oceans, no lakes, no forests...the minerals that make up the various rocks will have definite color when seen closer up...MOST of those specimens are likely unobserved until disturbed in some way.

With no natural erosive forces to speak of, the Moon is layered in a cover of almost uniform 'gray'...darker and lighter areas of 'gray'...and the other color variations are due to the 'temperature' of the film, and the lighting angles and conditions, and exposure settings.

By 'temperture' of the film, I should have said of the light....just as you get different colors when photographing here on Earth under different light sources, or 'temperatures'. A short course in photography will explain it better.



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 




Mint, because we are familiar with the Earth, and we know about the variations...the Moon is far more homogenous in color. It has no water oceans, no lakes, no forests...the minerals that make up the various rocks will have definite color when seen closer up...MOST of those specimens are likely unobserved until disturbed in some way.


Are you telling me that the moon has no water, no ocean and no forests!!? "Really?" Tell me, where did you earn your degree in stating the bleeding obvious?
Doesn't matter if an object with colour is 1 metre away, 1 mile away or a thousand miles away, you will still perceive the colour! Also, the astronauts where looking down on the moon through binoculars. They could make out the fine detail on the surface while in orbit. To coin a phrase, "They were seeing it in living colour! They just, it would seem, didn't tell us on earth about those colours.
Why would they lie about that?



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Mintwithahole.
 




Doesn't matter if an object with colour is 1 metre away, 1 mile away or a thousand miles away, you will still perceive the colour! Also, the astronauts where looking down on the moon through binoculars. They could make out the fine detail on the surface while in orbit. To coin a phrase, "They were seeing it in living colour! They just, it would seem, didn't tell us on earth about those colours.
Why would they lie about that?


Really, then why would this Google maps satellite image of White Sands Not show the blue area in the first zoom, and then show in the second zoom. No color being shown and then color. Yes I know that these are composite images taken at different times, but the idea remains the same. The blue area could be trick of light, but that just reinforces the point of not being able to discern color from a distance.



Another thought to consider is that the moon surface is highly reflective, how do you know how close you would have to be from discerning color of such a surface?



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by AlienCarnage
 


But if I were looking down with binoculars I would see it wouldn't I?



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
By 'temperture' of the film, I should have said of the light....just as you get different colors when photographing here on Earth under different light sources, or 'temperatures'. A short course in photography will explain it better.

I think weedwhacker is on to something here with the color temperature, etc. There is a whole science of photography that involves the use of color correcting filters, etc, to get the "right" color as perceived by the human eye.

Maybe the real color of the moon as perceived by the human eye is gray just like the astronauts said, and for whatever reason, the camera picked up some reddish hues. That could be a result of a lot of different things. But to assume that the "real" color is the reddish one ignores a lot of other possibilities.

Maybe what NASA could be accused of is "color correcting" the image so the color of the moon appeared the same as what the astronauts observed?

Here are some links we can read to educate ourselves about "color correction" before we make such comments as "The REAL color was.....",

Your-Photographs-and-Color-Temperature

www.scribd.com...

Color Temperature and Color Correction in Photography

I don't know how relevant this is, but when you look up at the moon, what color do you see? Looks kind of grayish to me.

Maybe the moon can be photographed with a reddish hue depending on the angle of incidence of the sun vs the angle of the camera with respect to the surface, or maybe not. But I think you're jumping to conclusions when you see a photograph with a little red in it that we must automatically assume that's a "true" color, maybe it is, and maybe it isn't. Maybe a professional in color temperature and color correction in photography could enlighten us some more, but in the meantime we should educate ourselves about it so as to not make incorrect statements.

[edit on 20-7-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Mintwithahole.
 


That all depends on my second thought about the Moon surface being reflective, where you may need to be physically closer to see any color, where as even looking through binoculars, you would just see a close up of the same reflective surface. There is a difference between being physically closer to something versus using a visual device to view it closer.



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlienCarnage
Another thought to consider is that the moon surface is highly reflective, how do you know how close you would have to be from discerning color of such a surface?

The Moon is not that reflective, it has an average albedo of 0.12, while Mars, for example, has an average albedo of 0.15.

I think that the fact that the Moon is very close to Earth makes us think that it is very reflective (after all, a full Moon reflects a lot of sunlight), but it's not.

As a comparison, grass has an albedo of 0.15.

Source



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I could talk about colour but that would upset Zorgon, it may be bad to his health.





new topics
top topics
 
35
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join